Method of making an enhanced natural sweetener

ABSTRACT

A method of making a natural sweetening composition comprising the steps of (a) steam stripping a crude mixture of at least one plant based natural high intensity sweetening compound; and (b) at least one step of filtering the crude mixture.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

The present application claims the benefit of priority to U.S.Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/440,512, filed Feb. 8, 2011, thecontents of which are completely incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Field of the Invention

The present invention relates to sweetening compositions. Moreparticularly, the present invention relates to a method of making anatural sweetener that has enhanced flavor attributes.

The market for natural foods is growing rapidly as more and moreconsumers are making a conscious choice to purchase food products thatare natural. To protect and assist consumers, governmental agencies suchas the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, have proposed standards toassure the natural status of various food ingredients.

This trend is also evident in the sweetener category, where naturalsweetener products are gaining in popularity. Many consumers are lookingfor natural sweeteners that provide the sweet taste they want with lesscalories than sugar.

Even so, some low or high intensity sweeteners are produced usingchemical treatments (addition of calcium carbonate, alumina or otherclarifying chemicals), or treatments with ion exchange resins, orcrystallization from non-food grade solvents. These commonly usedmethods fail to satisfy the regulatory guidelines for how a naturaltasting sweetener is made in many countries.

Moreover, many have tried using various methods to formulate a table topsweetener using natural ingredients. Often the formulation of theproduct has been adjusted to try to hide or overcome the undesirabletaste perceptions inherent in the natural sweetener product. In manyinstances, the resulting product no longer has a natural taste. Rather,consumers find some of these products have an artificial candy likeflavor. And in some instances, the undesirable taste and flavor notes,which consumers do not like are still present.

Clearly, consumers want a natural sweetener product that has a naturaltaste without an artificial taste and/or bitter taste.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is directed to a method of making a naturalsweetening composition comprising (a) the step of steam stripping acrude mixture of at least one plant based natural high intensitysweetening compound, and (b) at least one step of filtering the crudemixture.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 depicts a typical Steam Stripper schematic;

FIG. 2 depicts a process flow diagram where an extract is processedaccording to one embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 3 depicts a process flow diagram where an extract is processedaccording to another embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 4 depicts a process flow diagram where an extract is processedaccording to yet another embodiment of the invention;

FIG. 5 depicts a process flow diagram where an extract is processedaccording to still yet another embodiment of the invention; and

FIG. 6 depicts a process flow diagram where a fermentor product isprocessed according to an embodiment of the invention.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

As used herein, a gram of Sucrose Equivalent Sweetness (“SES”) isunderstood to mean the amount of low or high intensity sweetener neededto be added to an 8 ounce glass of water in order to provide the samesweetness as an independent 8 ounce glass of water containing one gramof sucrose. For example, about 1/250 g of rebaudioside A will equalabout one gram of SES because rebaudioside A is about 250 times sweeterthan sucrose. Similarly, about 1/50 g of glycyrrhizin will provide onegram of SES because glycyrrhizin is about 50 times sweeter than sucrose.

As used herein, a low intensity sweetener delivers between 0.5 to 2grams of sucrose-equivalent sweetness (SES) per gram of solids. Otherplant-derived low-intensity sweeteners include erythritol, xylitol,maltitol, maltooligosaccharide, mannitol, sorbitol, tagatose, glucose,fructose and sucrose. Since some of these are less sweet than others,the proportions and concentration of these sweeteners will affect thesweetness quality of the composite.

As used herein a “high intensity sweetener” delivers 50 grams of SES ormore per gram of solids. As disclosed herein a high intensity plantbased sweetener could be the extract or concentrate of the Monk fruit,also known as Luo Han Guo, or Stevia rebaudiana.

As used herein, “plant based” is understood to mean a compound orcombination of compounds naturally providing the principle sweetness ina plant. Further, it is understood to include sweeteners modified byenzymatic or microbial means resulting in a compound or combination ofcompounds naturally providing the principle sweetness in a plant.

The present inventors have devised a method of making a naturalsweetening composition, which produces a natural tasting sweetenerproduct. The natural sweetening composition includes an extract or crudemixture of at least one plant based natural high intensity sweeteningcompound, or the combination of at least one plant based natural lowintensity sweetening compound and at least one plant based natural highintensity sweetening compound. These components along with the remainingcomponents of the composition form the extract or crude mixture, whichis treated by (a) steam stripping, and (b) treating the extract or crudemixture to at least one step of filtering (clarification and/orextraction).

The crude plant extract is processed through a steam stripping column,thereby producing a steam stripped extract. The steam stripped extractis then filtered. For example, the extract mixture is pumped into thetop portion of a packed or tray column tower, where the mixture comes inintimate contact with steam that enters through the bottom portion ofthe tower. As a result of the contact between the mixture and the steam,volatile components from the extract mixture are transferred to thevapor phase, thus purifying the extract mixture.

Conditions and Parameters for Combine Use of Steam-Striping andFiltration:

Steam-to-feed ratio. The proportions of steam (for example, as kg ofwater vapor unit volume of feed per unit time) to the feed rate can bevaried depending on the efficiency of the column and the extent to whichvolatile components need to be removed.

Temperature of the feed and the steam at the point of entry into thecolumn. Pre-heating the feed and or super-heating the steam can preventsome degree of condensation and improve the efficiency of the operationin removing volatiles. As such, the heat balance must be maintained sothat enough liquid remains to keep the desirable non-volatile componentsin the liquid phase and moving down the steam stripping column.

Column and packing material geometry. The proportions of the column(height relative to circumference) and the shape of the packing materialshould be such that it minimizes the amount of “channeling” of eithervapor moving up, or liquid moving down, such that the two phases fail tomake necessary contact. Optimally, liquid and vapor will be in closecontact throughout the column so that the column operates at close tothe predicted number of theoretical plates. Similarly, the column willbe operated in a vertical position and the packing or redistributorplates selected offer minimal or no liquid hold-up.

The ratio of product output to the feed rate will be optimally close to1.0, but the column may be operated optionally to increase the producttake-off rate at the bottom relative to feed rate. A more dilute productwill result, or take a smaller bottoms rate (net greater evaporation ofthe feed stream resulting in more concentrated bottoms) relative to feedrate.

In either case, the sum of:

Liquid feed+steam feed=bottoms+vapor tops

will hold true otherwise the column will be accumulating an inventory ofliquid and will quickly flood.

The point of entry of liquid and vapor feed, and take-off of product canvary depending on the column design and the efficiency of operation.Although the Examples which follow depict/discuss an apical feed andbottom take-off, the feed can be introduced axially along the column atone or more points. Moreover, product and/or steam may be introduced atone or several points along the sides of the column. The conditions ofoperation of this column are inherent in the design and can be selectedto yield a specific product composition with respect to the volatilecomponents and concentration of non-volatiles.

Ideally, steam quality should be compatible with food. However, somesteam generators use chemicals or other additives (to protect theboiler) that may be volatile and that may be carried into the product inthe bottoms (or the steam/vapor at the top, if that is the desiredproduct stream). Thus, it is preferable to avoid the use of boilerchemicals in order to generate clean steam for the process.

In one embodiment, the process of steam stripping is carried out suchthat contact between vapor (steam) and liquid is intimate and rapid. Forexample, this may be accomplished by conducting the process in aconfiguration that enables the flow of steam in a direction opposite(counter-current) to the flow of the liquid feed. Steam stripping may beaccomplished vertically with counter-current flows of liquid (down) andvapor (up).

Alternatively, steam stripping may be accomplished in a hybrid manner asshown in FIG. 1. In FIG. 1, the liquid is brought into the vapor phaseby mechanical means (such as a rotation disk or by spraying) while theliquid flows by passive overflow of the weirs (e.g., if the vessel isinclined slightly where feed is higher than the take-off point) orpumped from one chamber to the next.

Depending on the conditions of operation, this is considered to be steamstripping because in fact the liquid is moving counter-current to theflow of the steam.

Another critical step in the method is the step of filtration(clarification and/or fractionation), where filtration is used to purifya liquid, i.e., extract the mixture by separating particles from theliquid. Basically, solvent is passed through a semi-permeable barrier.The size of the pores in the barrier determines the barrier'spermeability, allowing solvent and particles smaller than the size ofthe pores to pass through the barrier, while retaining or rejectingparticles which are larger than the pores. This provides a way toseparate undesirable components from the liquid solvent, resulting in apurified liquid that is clean and filtered on one side of the barrier,with the removed solute particles on the other side. In a preferredembodiment, membrane filtration may be used to remove fine particulatematter, color particles, and macromolecules such as proteins andpolysaccharides. Membrane filtration can be used to enrich somecomponents while depleting or removing others. This recognizes that theseparation based on size does not need to be complete to be effectiveand useful. In another embodiment, other stationary media that can beemployed for filtration, such as separations based on solute or particlesize using resin beads, or molecular sieve particles made from clays orceramics, and other similar materials and the like.

The filtration step may be employed prior to, after, or prior to andafter the steam stripping step.

Membrane Fractionation Parameters:

One form of filtration is molecular filtration, which is accomplishedwith semi-permeable membranes (membrane fractionation) filtration. Thisbasically involves partitioning solutes across a semi-permeable membraneon the basis of their molecular size. The empirical equation generallyused to predict or model the behavior of solutes is:

% Rejection=(log(Cr/Co))/(log(Vo/Vr))×100%

Where: Cr=concentration of given solute in the retentate

-   -   Co=concentration of given solute in the original (feed) solution    -   Vo=initial volume of feed    -   Vr=volume of the retentate    -   Retentate=that portion of the feed solution that does not go        through the membrane    -   Permeate=the portion of the feed solution that passes through        the membrane

All membrane fractionations assume some moderate temperature controlsince temperature can affect the permeability of the membrane, andtherefore the apparent % rejection (% R) of a solute. It should beunderstood that the temperature of the product will be dependent uponthe desired results and can be determined empirically duringprocessing/operation. In one embodiment, the temperature of the productis in the range of from about 15 to about 100° C.

The molecular size of the solute has more to do with shape and volume,and electronic charge of the solute than its molecular weight (MW), butMW can be a useful way to distinguish which solutes are likely, or not,to pass through a membrane.

The size and shape of the complex molecules in a plant extract can beaffected by other solutes, including some that may be removed duringsteam stripping.

Several embodiments of the inventive process utilizing steam strippingwith filtration are depicted in FIGS. 2-6. The process alternativesshown in FIGS. 2-6 illustrate a variety of combinations ofsteam-stripping with filtration processing (clarification andfractionation). FIG. 2 depicts a process flow schematic where an extractis treated to steam stripping and fractionation. In FIG. 3, a processflow schematic is shown where an extract is treated to membraneclarification, steam stripping and fractionation. In FIG. 4, a processflow schematic is shown where an extract is treated to steam stripping,membrane clarification and fractionation. FIG. 5 depicts a process flowschematic where an extract is treated to fractionation and steamstripping, where the extract may optionally be treated to the step ofmembrane clarification prior to fractionation. And in FIG. 6 a processflow schematic is shown where an extract is treated to fermentation(enzyme modification) to form a fermentor product which is treated tomembrane clarification, steam stripping and fractionation. It should beunderstood that FIG. 6 exemplifies one particular embodiment, however,the fermentation (enzyme modification) step may occur after (i) membraneclarification, (ii) steam stripping, or (iii) fractionation. That is,the sequential position of the fermentation (enzymatic modification)step in addition to the subsequent processing steps may be varied. Allcombinations are intended as part of the invention.

Clarification here is a form of filtration to remove very smallparticles down to the size of bacterial cells or spores, or possiblysome viruses. In contrast, fractionation is more at the level ofmacromolecules or smaller, down to a water molecule. A semi-permeablemembrane used to effect clarification or fractionation can becharacterized in terms of its porosity. The term nominal molecularweight cut-off (nmwco) is used by those skilled in the art to describethe porosity of the membrane in terms of the approximate upper limit ofsize molecule that the semi-permeable membrane will allow to pass (orlower limit of retention). This is understood to be a descriptive termsince the effective porosity can vary with the operating temperature,the system pressure and the geometry of the solute particles, amongother factors. The specific selection of a membrane is highly empiricaland is typically the result of experimentation. It is understood thatclarification and filtration materials may be laminated products, porousmetals, or non-metals such as ceramics, glass, carbon, and othermaterials.

Optionally, the process may include a drying step. Any suitable means ofdrying the natural sweetening composition may be employed.

The improved natural flavor quality may be perceived as a more pleasantsweet taste with less “green” notes characteristic of crude plantextracts, reduced off-flavors from undesirable extractable components(possibly from surface components), or reduced bitter notes in theextract.

Plant based natural low intensity sweeteners include, but are notlimited to, fruit-derived sweeteners such as D-fructose, also known aslevulose D-arabino-2-hexulose, or “Fruit Sugar” which is found in manyfruits. Other examples are concentrated or dried fruit juices, such asthe juices from apples, grapes, or the like.

Plant based natural high intensity sweeteners include, but are notlimited to, plant matter from Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni, plant matterfrom liquorice root Glycyrrhiza glabra and/or plant matter from thefruit of a herbaceous perennial vine native to southern China, Siraitiagrosvenorii, known by the botanical synonyms Momordica grosvenorii andThladiantha grosvenorii, Monk fruit (commonly referred to as Luo HanGuo).

Additionally, a variety of ingredients may be included in the sweeteningcomposition of the present invention.

For example, a bulking agent or other carrier material may be included.Among those disclosed or used include fructooligosaccharide (FOS) andother fibers, maltooligosaccharides, and erythritol. Erythritol isespecially popular as it can mitigate some of the bitter taste. Thecarrier material may be in the form of a simple mixture, orco-crystallized with the high intensity sweetener.

Other fruit extracts may contribute additional flavor or colorattributes that can elicit the perception of “natural” in the sweetener.Strawberry or blueberry flavored syrups or other berry syrup solids, aswell as various concentrated fruit juices comprise a number of sweet andnon-sweet compounds that contribute to the perception of “natural.”

Often the makers or users of these sweeteners add other components tothem to overcome a less pleasant taste, e.g., a bitter taste.

Another optional ingredient in the composition of the present inventionis a soluble food ingredient. The soluble food ingredient may be, forexample, a fructooligosaccharide (FOS), a digestion resistantmaltodextrin (e.g., FiberSol), erythritol, inulin, a sugar polymer, orany combination thereof. Preferably, the soluble food ingredient is afiber.

Vitamins and minerals may also be present.

The compositions may contain other components, including flavor, aroma,other nutritional components, binders, and mixtures thereof.

The tabletop sweeteners disclosed, can be amorphous or crystallinesolids, liquids, or syrups. They can be produced by any number ofprocesses known to those skilled in the art.

Preferably the tabletop sweetener compositions have less than 2.5 kcalsper teaspoon (equal in sweetness to 1 tsp of sucrose), but can beformulated to deliver a wide variety of caloric contents less than the 4kcals per gram of SES (the caloric value of sucrose). For example, thecompositions can be formulated using techniques known to those workingin the area, such as low bulk density spray drying, to any practicaldensity.

The natural sweetener composition has less than 2 kcal per gram of SES.In one embodiment, the sweetening composition has less than 1 kcal pergram of SES. In another embodiment, the sweetening composition has lessthan 0.5 kcal per gram of SES. In yet another embodiment, the sweeteningcomposition has less than 0.25 kcal per gram of SES.

Additionally, the natural sweetener composition has a density of fromabout 0.1 g/cm³ to about 0.8 g/cm³.

The natural sweetener composition has a ratio of carrier material toplant based natural high intensity sweetening compound of from about 1:1to about 99:1. In one embodiment, the ratio of carrier material to plantbased natural high intensity sweetening compound of from about 10:1 toabout 90:1. In another embodiment, the ratio of carrier material toplant based natural high intensity sweetening compound of from about25:1 to about 50:1. In yet another embodiment, the ratio of carriermaterial to plant based natural high intensity sweetening compound offrom about 30:1 to about 40:1.

The tabletop sweeteners compositions can be delivered in any formatknown to those skilled in the art. For example, sachets, bulk bags, etc.

Unless otherwise defined, all technical and scientific terms used hereinhave the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill inthe art to which this invention pertains. The materials, methods, andexamples described herein are illustrative only and not intended to belimiting.

The following example is provided to further illustrate the compositionsand methods of the present invention. The example is illustrative onlyand is not intended to limit the scope of the invention in any way.

Example 1 Combined Steam Strip and Membrane Filtration Extraction:

Dried, coarsely chopped leaves of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni) (0.8 kg)were immersed in city water (5.85 kg) inside a Groen (Model: TDB/7-23)kettle and the mixture was brought to a boil. The mixture was kept at aslow simmer for several minutes, then allowed to cool for a few hours,until it was just warm to the touch. The aqueous liquor was decantedaway from the leaf mass, and the leaves pressed by hand to remove asmuch of the extract as possible. The leaf mass was discarded and theextract (3.8 kg, less samples) was carried on to the steam strippingstage. The extract was very dark in color and very turbid, even afterfiltration through a 200 mesh screen.

Steam Stripping:

The steam stripper was operated as a single stage, but additional stagescould have been inserted. There were three sections: (1) the head cap,with a feed inlet centered over the barrel and a tops vapor outlet thancould have been connected to a condenser; (2) the barrel, which holdsthe packing material and hold-downs; and (3) the bottoms take-off, whichalso had a steam inlet positioned off-center to prevent liquid trickingdown the column from blocking steam entering the column barrel. Theexterior of the column was insulated to minimize heat loss andcondensation on the walls of the barrel.

The extract was fed at the top of the column at about 5 mL/min againstan established steam flow of about 96 mL/min (measured as condensate).Steam stripper bottoms were collected semi-continuously by adjusting theaperture of the stopcock of the bottoms take-off. Approximately 6.7 kgof steam stripped bottoms were collected over about 75 minutes (89mL/min; about 39 mL/min of condensate from steam). The combined steamstripper bottoms were sampled and the rest was used for the membraneclarification stage. Steam stripper bottoms were observed to be as blackas the steam stripper feed, but completely free of the grassy, herbalodor notes prominent in the crude extract, and characteristic of boiledStevia leaves.

Membrane Clarification:

Clarification was accomplished using a KOCH membrane test unit (KPN0210090) fitted with a 1″ hollow fiber test cartridge (PM2) of about2000 nmwco. The steam stripper bottoms was recirculated for a fewminutes without back pressure to establish flow, then backpressure wasapplied by gradually tightening a pinch clamp on the membrane dischargeside until a slow permeate flow was achieved (about 4 mL/min). Thiscontinued until 1.25 kg of permeate was collected. Samples of permeateand retentate were collected as retained samples. The permeate appearedcompletely transparent and had a slight golden color. Both permeate andretentate exhibited a strong sweet taste characteristic of steviolglycosides, but the permeate had a less pronounced bitter aftertaste.

Since the fractionation process is non-destructive, composition of thefeed (Co) can be calculated by adding back the components from permeateand retentate as shown:

Co=[(Cp×Mp)+(Cr×Mr)]/Mo×100%

Where: Cp=concentration of given solute in the permeate

-   -   Mp=mass of the permeate

Table 1 below shows the % rejection calculated for some representativesteviol glycosides. The identity of the steviol glycosides wasestablished by relative HPLC mobility relative to known standards andconfirmed by mass spectrometry.

TABLE 1 Reb A (& Dulcoside Mass Reb F Stevioside) Reb D Reb C A (kg)Formula weight 936 966 (804) 1128 950 788 Calculated Co 5.1% 29.4% 2.6%6.9% 1.9% 5.7 % Peak area Cr 5.66% 30.27% 2.87% 7.57% 2.00% 4.5 % Peakarea Cp 3.01% 25.30% 1.50% 4.32% 1.67% 1.25 Calculated % Rejection41.71% 11.68% 42.65% 37.75% 11.76%

The observed % rejection can be influenced by the concentration in thefeed as well as the molecular size. These results are understood to meanthat all the components are permeable to the membrane, whereas the colorbodies and some bitter components are much less so. The resultsdemonstrate how membrane fractionation, in conjunction withsteam-stripping, may produce a cleaner, more desirable steviol glycosidestream without the need for resin treatment or crystallization fromorganic solvents such as methanol or ethanol.

Example 2 Extraction

Dried, coarsely chopped leaves of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertonii) (1 kg)were immersed in city water (8.5 kg) inside a Groen (Model: TDB/7-23)kettle and the mixture brought to a boil. The mixture was kept at a slowsimmer for several minutes, and allowed to cool for a few hours until itwas just warm to the touch. The aqueous liquor was decanted away fromthe leaf mass, and the leaves pressed by hand to remove as much of theextract as possible. The leaf mass was discarded and the extract (5.4kg, less samples) was carried on to the steam-stripping stage. Theextract was very dark in color, and very turbid, even after filtrationthrough a 200 mesh screen.

Steam Stripping:

The steam-stripper (SS) was operated in a 2-stage mode. Extract was fed(about 12 mL/min.) at the top of the column against an established steamflow of about 150 mL/min (measured as condensate). Steam stripperbottoms were collected semi-continuously by adjusting the aperture ofthe stopcock of the bottoms take-off. Approximately 7.85 kg ofsteam-stripped bottoms were collected over about 195 minutes (range 45to 91 mL/min.). The combined steam-stripper bottoms were sampled and therest was used for the membrane clarification stage. Steam-stripperbottoms were observed to be as black as the steam-stripper feed, butcompletely free of the grassy, herbal odor notes prominent in the crudeextract, and characteristic of boiled Stevia leaves.

2-Stage Membrane Fractionation

Stage 1: Fractionation was accomplished using a KOCH membrane test unit(KPN 0210090) fitted with a 1″ hollow fiber test cartridge (PM10) ofabout 10,000 nmwco. The steam-stripper bottoms (7.8 kg) was recirculatedfor a few minutes without back pressure to establish flow, thenbackpressure applied by gradually tightening a pinch clamp on themembrane discharge side until 80 mL/min permeate flow was achieved. Thiscontinued until 5.65 kg of permeate was collected (2 hours). Samples ofpermeate, and retentate (2 kg) were collected as retained samples. Thepermeate appeared very dark in color, but devoid of particulate matter.The permeate and retentate exhibited a strong sweet taste characteristicof steviol glycosides.

Stage 2: The second membrane fractionation was accomplished with a 1″hollow fiber test cartridge (PM2) of about 2,000 nmwco. The First StagePermeate (5.65 kg) was recirculated for a few minutes without backpressure to establish flow, then backpressure applied by graduallytightening a pinch clamp on the membrane discharge side until 5.5 mL/minpermeate flow was achieved, which increased gradually to 17 mL/min asthe feed warmed from 19° C. to 38° C. 2.05 kg of permeate was collected(3.5 hours). Samples of permeate, and retentate (3.65 kg) were collectedfor analysis. Permeate appeared a light golden color. Permeate andretentate exhibited a strong sweet taste characteristic of steviolglycosides.

Estimation of % Rejection

Table 2 below shows the % rejection calculated for some representativesteviol glycosides. The identity of the steviol glycosides wasestablished by relative HPLC mobility relative to known standards andconfirmed by mass spectrometry.

TABLE 2 Reb A Mass Reb F & Stev Reb D Reb C Dulc A (kg) PM10 Membrane #1Product Steam stripper bottoms Peak Area Feed 4.3% 23.7% 4.8% 6.8% 2.2%7.85 Peak area Retentate 3.39% 22.66% 5.39% 7.64% 2.58% 2.05 Peak areaPermeate 2.23% 28.09% 3.49% 4.51% 1.45% 5.65 Calculated % Rejection−18.06% −3.22% 9.41% 8.67% 11.87% PM2 Membrane #2 Product PM10 PermeatePeak area Feed 2.23% 28.09% 3.49% 4.51% 1.45% 5.65 Peak area Retentate3.98% 26.07% 3.64% 6.54% 2.96% 3.65 Peak area Permeate 3.65% 22.14%4.52% 6.99% 2.37% 2.05

The observed % rejection can be influenced by the concentration in thefeed as well as the molecular size. These results are understood to meanthat all the components are permeable to the PM10 membrane, includingmuch of the color. Subsequent fractionation of the PM10 permeate usingthe PM2 membrane enabled removal of the color bodies as in Example 1.

The results demonstrate how membrane fractionation, in conjunction withsteam-stripping, may produce a cleaner, more desirable steviol glycosidestream without the need for resin treatment or crystallization fromorganic solvents such as methanol or ethanol.

While the invention has been described above with reference to specificembodiments thereof, it is apparent that many changes, modifications,and variations can be made without departing from the inventive conceptdisclosed herein. Accordingly, it is intended to embrace all suchchanges, modifications, and variations that fall within the spirit andbroad scope of the appended claims. All patent applications, patents,and other publications cited herein are incorporated by reference intheir entirety.

1. A method of making a natural sweetening composition comprising thesteps of: (a) steam stripping a crude mixture of at least one plantbased natural high intensity sweetening compound; and (b) at least onestep of filtering the crude mixture.
 2. The method of claim 1, whereinthe sweetening composition is subjected to a drying process.
 3. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the plant based natural high intensitysweetening compound is selected from the group consisting of steviolglycosides, glycyrrhizin (and related structures), mogrosides, andmixtures thereof.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the sweeteningcomposition is combined with a carrier material.
 5. The method of claim1, wherein the sweetening composition is co-crystallized with a carriermaterial.
 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising a plant basednatural low intensity sweetening compound.
 7. The method of claim 1,wherein the crude mixture includes the plant based natural low intensitysweetening compound.
 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the plant basednatural low intensity sweetening compound is a fruit-derived sweetener.9. The method of claim 1, wherein the filtering step is performed usinga semi-permeable membrane.
 10. The method of claim 1, wherein thefiltering step occurs (i) prior to said steam stripping step, (ii) aftersaid steam stripping step, (iii) prior to the steam stripping step and asecond filtration step after the steam stripping step.
 11. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the method does not include treatments with ionexchange resins, treatments with carbon based or resin based decoloringagents, or crystallization with carbon based solvents.
 12. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the natural high intensity sweetener is modified byenzymatic or microbial fermentation.